Comparison between Rescue Flap and Double Flap Technique

Abstract

Objectives Endoscopic techniques in pituitary surgery lead to inevitable mucosal loss of the sphenoethmoidal recess and posterior nasal septum in the nasal cavity. There is no other comparative study between primary reconstruction of septal perforation and secondary healing in the literature. The aim of this study is to evaluate postoperative patient morbidity with or without posterior septal perforation in endonasal pituitary surgery by comparing two commonly used techniques: rescue and double nasoseptal flaps.

Design Prospectively randomized study.

Setting Tertiary academic center.

Participants Sixty patients underwent endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery.

Main Outcomes and Measures Functional results (breathing) using visual analog scale (VAS), sphenoid sinusitis, presence of synechia, perforation in the posterior septum, and crusting in the sphenoethmoidal recess were assessed.

Results Pre- and postoperative mean VAS scores were 71.67 ± 11.47 and 67.67 ± 9.71 mm in the intact septum group and 77.67 ± 14.06 and 62.67 ± 10.48 mm in the posterior septal perforation group. There was a significant difference between pre- and postoperative VAS values in all groups. There was significant worsening in both groups; worsening in VAS values was much higher in the posterior septal perforation group. In the posterior septal perforation group, much more crusting was seen.

Conclusions This is the first study to compare the postoperative patient morbidity in endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery with and without a posterior septal perforation. Reconstruction of the posterior septum along with less mucosal loss yields better postoperative nasal symptom score.

Keywords

endoscopic approach - double nasoseptal flap - morbidity - pituitary - rescue flap - septal perforation - visual analog scale

• References

• 1 Hadad G, Bassagasteguy L, Carrau RL. , et al. A novel reconstructive technique after endoscopic expanded endonasal approaches: vascular pedicle nasoseptal flap. Laryngoscope 2006; 116 (10) 1882-1886
• 2 Gode S, Biceroglu H, Turhal G. , et al. Double nasoseptal flap technique for endonasal pituitary surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274 (02) 897-900
• 3 Rivera-Serrano CM, Snyderman CH, Gardner P. , et al. Nasoseptal “rescue” flap: a novel modification of the nasoseptal flap technique for pituitary surgery. Laryngoscope 2011; 121 (05) 990-993
• 4 Wang F, Zhou T, Wei S. , et al. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery of 1,166 pituitary adenomas. Surg Endosc 2015; 29 (06) 1270-1280
• 5 Chaaban MR, Chaudhry AL, Riley KO, Woodworth BA. Objective assessment of olfaction after transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2015; 29 (05) 365-368
• 6 Charalampaki P, Ayyad A, Kockro RA, Perneczky A. Surgical complications after endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. J Clin Neurosci 2009; 16 (06) 786-789
• 7 Greig SR, Cooper TJ, Sommer DD, Nair S, Wright ED. Objective sinonasal functional outcomes in endoscopic anterior skull-base surgery: an evidence-based review with recommendations. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2016; 6 (10) 1040-1046
• 8 Lee A, Sommer D, Reddy K, Murty N, Gunnarsson T. Endoscopic transnasal approach to the craniocervical junction. Skull Base 2010; 20 (03) 199-205
• 9 Grützenmacher S, Mlynski R, Lang C, Scholz S, Saadi R, Mlynski G. The nasal airflow in noses with septal perforation: a model study. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2005; 67 (03) 142-147
• 10 Kim BY, Shin JH, Kang SG. , et al. Bilateral modified nasoseptal “rescue” flaps in the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach. Laryngoscope 2013; 123 (11) 2605-2609
• 11 Ozawa H, Tomita T, Watanabe Y. , et al. Sigmoid incision rescue nasoseptal flap technique for endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 2016; 136 (06) 636-640